Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Who decides where to make reel breaks?

This is topic Who decides where to make reel breaks? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003304

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-15-2002, 11:43 PM:

Just ran a sneak of the new Ethan Hawke (directorial debut) film CHELSEA WALLS (lions Gate Film). Aside from the fact that it was the darkest, muddiest looking pictures I have ever run, with some scenes so dark I had to constantly check the arc to make sure I was still in trim.....light look bright and beautiful in the spy box window, only no light came out the lens. I actually missed a change-over cue it was so damn dark. So you can imagine what a foul mood THAT put me in. But here's the thing -- this picture was cut on 8 reels, when clearly it should have been on 7 as reel 6 was only about 400ft and reel 7 was maybe 1100. Both reels fit just fine on a single house reel (which holds even less than a plastic shipping reel). I don't like splicing a mint print, but this was ridiculous. It goes back in the can on 7 reels, not 8, with the heads and tales wound on the extra plastic reel -- the bent one.

And I won't say much about the content except two words -- pretentious and boring....I lied, make it three -- gobble -- it's THAT much of a turkey.

So, anyone have any idea why they would break these reels like that? I understand in musicals they used to try to make reel breaks where there was no musical number (although this was not always an attainable goal). But at these two reel break locations, you could have racked down to 3 and you wouldn't have missed anything. Better still, you could have skipped reels and no one would have noticed. We started off with about 250 and when the house light came up, there were about 50 left in the theatre -- Uma Thurman's fans, no doubt.

Mr.Hawke needs to take a course in cinema 101 before attempting his first film....and while he is at it, drag his his cinematographer and lighting designer might as well, making them take their first course in their respective fields.

Frank

PS...that goes double for the film cutter.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-15-2002, 11:52 PM:

Definetly an editors decision on the reels. Sounds to me like this may have been Hawk's film school assignment. If so, I think he just got an F.

Why is it that some actors think they can Direct a movie.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-16-2002, 12:06 AM:

And not very good actors in the first place.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-16-2002, 01:00 AM:

Im not an Ethan Hawk fan, but i really liked GATTACA.

Posted by Howard Johnson (Member # 62) on 04-16-2002, 05:15 AM:

I agree with Frank, it's really irritating when films arrive in more reels than necessary. When I worked as a studio projectionist many years ago the rough cut of the film would be assembled onto full 1000 foot reels. We would show this on 2 projectors with change-overs every 10 mins! I think that short reels result from cutting of the film after this stage, sometimes a considerable amount of material is removed. In both of the films where I was an extra - "Wish You Were Here" and "Madness Of King George" my wonderful "performance" was cut out. I do think that the lab could be asked to asked to recut the neg to give even lengths of reels but I suppose the production co. will not spend the money

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 04-16-2002, 06:37 AM:

You got 1000 foot reels from the editor because that's the size of the platters on an editing table.

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 04-17-2002, 07:59 PM:

John Anastasio writes:

quote:
You got 1000 foot reels from the editor because that's the size of the platters on an editing table.

Ah, but that just pushes the cause back a step. Why does the flat bed have 1000 foot plates?

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 04-17-2002, 08:25 PM:

I can deal with the short reels, but if there are going to be short reels, the changeovers better be well thought out. Mid-scene or mid-shot (grrrr) changeovers are infuriating and unacceptable in those situations. If an editor is cutting the reels for some odd length, I would assume that it is (normally) being done for the sake of scene changes and continuity in a changeover situation.

This of course does not come into play when a film ships on 1000' reels. It seems that many labs/distributors/archives in Europe and Asia still use this method of shipping and storing features, but I am not exactly sure why that might be. Perhaps Mr. Enticknap can offer some input as an archivist.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 04-17-2002, 08:39 PM:

Who decides where to put the reel breaks?

The last operator to handle a print before I get it.

More and more as second run operator I see the prior operator just filling a reel and cutting it off anywhere. Despite the larger number of wide releases the quality of most prints I get continues to steadily decline. What else can you expect with multiplex mania and its accompanying fiscal irresponsibility where most chains employ floor staff for the booth?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Where you stand on issue depends upon where you sit!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-17-2002, 09:59 PM:

As a former editorial apprentice I can tell you that it would be inconvenient to be shuttling back-and-forth between 2000' reels.

1000' reels made rapid access to specific shots/scenes possible.

We referred to them as 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B so that we could keep it clear as to which was the head of a reel and which was the tail, and we used a template so that we always knew just where the cue dots would go. Dark shots and fade outs were a major no-no.

We even kept a footage count so that the cans would be balanced!

The film editor was Mr. Andrew Mondshein. Maybe we should create an award (!?)

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-17-2002, 10:00 PM:

Because 1000' was always the normal editorial reel length and one time was the standard projection length as well. You *can* put 2000' plates on a KEM (I have them for my 8-plate Universal) but not in all positions simultaneously as the winding spindles are too closely spaced for that. You basically use it as a 4-plate (1 picture, 1 track) when using it that way. To create space to make it fully 2000' capable throughout you'd be putting too many things beyond the easy reach of the editor.

Now with most films being editing on workstations I presume that workprints are probably being conformed to the EDL directly as 2000' rolls rather than 1000' lengths and then doubled up for test screenings. (And when a test screening is at a theatre those will get built up on platter & MUT anyway.)

The 1000' length may also have been inspired by the limits on reel size on double system projectors although my own run 2000' with no problem.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-17-2002, 10:04 PM:

Manny, having never edited a 35mm film I must ask the obvious. Assuming the film is not being completed 48 hours before the movie opens in several thousand theaters and everyone is "on time", why can't the entire reels be added together footage-wise and one hour of effort put into deciding "hey this 9 reeler will fit on 6 reels and it won't interfere with scene changes if we cut it here and here and here and here and here." I understand frequently that some of the reels are already at the lab being printed before the rest of the movie is finished and in those circumstances I can understand, but not every movie is completed at the last second. Any reason why that can not be done?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-17-2002, 10:06 PM:

Manny Knowles said: "The film editor was Mr. Andrew Mondshein. Maybe we should create an award (!?)"

Hey, some pretty good films there! Which did you work on?
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Mondshein,+Andrew

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-18-2002, 02:15 AM:

Brad:

You asked why reels aren't conformed to 2,000 foot lengths as a routine part of the post-production process. When I posed exactly the same question in the 'annoyingly short reels' thread several months ago, here was Bill Carter's reply:

quote:
Usually, the physical number of reels is "carved in stone" once the negative cutter begins conforming the camera negative. Changes may still be made within a reel, but footages per reel generally don't get rebalanced. Once the cutter has made certain shots "head" and "tail" shots for the various reels, that can be difficult to change. Major handling of camera negative like that is avoided as much as possible, because of the potential for wear and damage.

I only wish editors had always taken that line! I've recently been preparing a 3-reel 35mm documentary made in 1947 for preservation duping, and found the camera negative to be full of bad (and in some cases, not straight) joins, edge damage, V-cut perforations, rusting Lawley clips (steel clips which were an early device used to signal changes in printer light, which were supposed to be removed after printing has been completed) and even fingerprints on both surfaces.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-18-2002, 05:01 AM:

Thanks Leo. That may have been the post I was vaguely remembering from long ago.

With more and more movies being edited on non-linear video machines, I would think this sort of thing could be easily corrected. Let's hope.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-18-2002, 05:46 AM:

I guess the point of no return is when the negative cutter starts making physical cuts to the camera negative, e.g. joins the head leader negative to the first shot in the reel. Up until that point you'd be editing electronically using an Avid or whatever. After that point, then undoing a cut would require unnecessary film handling.

Another complication could be foreign or alternative release versions. For example, if the BBFC (UK censors) demanded cuts to a scene, then I guess the way you'd do it is to edit the dupe neg which is used to strike the UK release prints. Take, say, 3-4 minutes of footage out of a reel that way and it could end up being annoyingly short.

Ironically, the worst offender I had towards the end of my time in the booth was Dancer in the Dark - 10 reels for just over two hours, but the original shooting was on video! So it wouldn't be a case of cutting the negative, because there'd be no negative to cut until the video editing was finished and a tape-to-film transfer was done. So why they then needed to produce 10 tiny reels I really don't know.

Mind you, it was worth all the effort to see Björk being hanged!

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-18-2002, 10:32 PM:

That and the Swedish locomotives painted in the old Great Northern Railway (USA) colors. I remember doing a double take and looking at that shot under a lens on the bench after the reel came down.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-19-2002, 01:14 AM:

John: I worked on "Jason's Lyric." IMDb doesn't list me, but I am in the actual film credits as "Emmanuelle Knoels" or something like that. They mis-spelled BOTH of my names!!!

Brad: Editors can and should consider the shipping ramifications. There aren't that many rules to follow. Aim for 1900 feet per shipping reel and don't begin an "a" reel or end a "b" reel with black frames.

As for "rush jobs," I didn't heard about them very often, but that doesn't mean they weren't common. They certainly could be more common today...digital editing has shortened the (already meager) post-production schedule on the average movie.

In film school (USC) we were taught to consider the number of reels and how shipping cans generally work (3 or 4 per can) and how it's not a great idea to end reels with black frames or fades (in or out). It's considered bad form, but that doesn't stop folks from doing it anyway. By the way, I worked with another editor who was considerate of the shipping and real-world projection ramifications...I just can't remember her name. The movie was never released commercially (it was called "omaha").

"Sphere" is a movie in recent memory that had reels beginning/ending in black.

"Scorpion King" is a current release with reel 1 ending and reel 2 beginning with black frames. I had to break-down and re-make the splice on one of our prints because the projectionist didn't read the notice that came with the print. I'm sure she wasn't the only one in the world...and I'm sure they won't all get fixed, either.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-19-2002, 01:16 AM:

Leo:

Some video-to-film converters can't accept loads greater than 1000-feet. I suppose they could join two reels, but if the film was originated on video it's a good bet they couldn't afford a negative cutter.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-19-2002, 08:55 AM:

Manny,

This CHELSEA WALLS *was* shot on video and transfered to film (which possibly accounts for the horrific quality of the image?). Ethan Hawke has been making the talk show circuites bragging about how he made this film for $100,000. It certainly looks it. It also might be that, given that the film has no direction, with scenes meandering on and on all over the place, Lion's Gate execs might have stepped in and insisted on some post production editing on their own, trimming down what might have been a few excruciatingly long (and pointless) scenes, hense the irrationally short reels.

You know how sometimes you sit in a theatre and want to yell out "Projectionist"? Well, with this film you sit in the theatre wanting to yell "EDITOR." Or perhaops just a simple moan...."Please lord, make it stop"

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-19-2002, 01:05 PM:

Speaking shipping ramifications, is most shipping by weight or is it on a unit basis? I just wonder if some of the small companies (or classics units of large companies) that use contract film handling / warehousing services realize that these firms are typically sticking their prints into those ancient heavyweight cases that weigh as much empty as the others do full.

Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 04-21-2002, 01:35 PM:

The worst film I can remember for being wasteful of reels was Kenneth Branage's "Hamlet". This one came in on seventeen (17) some odd reels (I can't remember the exact number)! For a 242 minute film, it could have easily been on eleven reels (or maybe twelve). Six extra reels and cans just adds up to added shipping expense, which we have to pay.

"Dancer in the Dark" (or as some have titled it "Dresses in the Dark") was another. It went back out with one reel empty and a note explaining about a missed splice and a shipping deadline.

More than one film comes in with reel three short. Sometimes not even 1000ft on the reel. Why? I can understand the last reel being short, but why #3? In a lot of cases, if the first five reels were full (2000ft or so) there would not even be a need for the sixth (or read first six and no need for the seventh, etc.).

Sometimes I have to pay shipping both in and out. Useless reels adding to the weight just irk me.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 04-22-2002, 12:35 AM:

>>This one [Hamlet] came in on seventeen (17) some odd reels (I can't remember the exact number)!<<

TWENTY reels. FIVE cans.

'Das Boot: Director's Cut' was half an hour shorter and shipped on eleven reels.

-Aaron

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-22-2002, 02:17 AM:

The crux of this problem is that producers and distributors don't pay for shipping the prints - the theatres pick up the bill. Therefore, there's no incentive to keep the reel count down because any extra negative cutting just represents more expense for the people making the film. If the end result is higher shipping costs and more projectionist hours needed to prepare the prints, that's no problem for the producer.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-22-2002, 02:58 AM:

I don't know how true that is in the US. While exhibitors do pay, we generally pay "by unit," as Steve puts it.

For TES, we (usually) pay $55/print (that covers both directions), and for ETS, we pay zero, but our local delivery folks (FilmTrans) charge $107/month (not at all usage-sensitive). I don't know if there's much variation for other folks.

I guess the weights are factored in here somewhere in that if everyone started shipping 9-reel 3-can movies we'd see an increase, but it's not a direct or clearly visible thing. Also, I assume there's plenty of shipping cost that we don't see. Prints from Hollywood, Toronto, etc. have to make it to TES in Ohio somehow, and to whichever regional ETS depot. That cost has to fall on studios, right?

I do remember a few years back Technicolor raised the $55 rate up from $50 and sent a letter to that effect. Perhaps I should go dig it up. I think the excuse was rising jet fuel prices?

--jhawk

Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 04-22-2002, 04:26 AM:

I agree with Jonathan Crist. Large exibitors such as Carmike, the worlds worst, are well known for their ability to find a minimum wage projectiontist among their concession help. Thus, quality and care in film handling siffers from lack of training and ethics.
I and my friend Martin Murray have found poor print condition due to miss handling/ cutting to be an increasing problem. There are some print that come in so bad that you almost have to match the soundtrack to know where to put it together.
I know the "Carmike" scenario isn't the only reason for "miss-cut" prints, beleive me. I could start naming some familiar names that "have good reason" for cutting where they do and "saving" the "extra reels".

------------------
Film-Guard directions:
1.) Lather
2.) Rinse
3.) Repeat
***Do Not Ingest***
Brent

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-22-2002, 07:37 AM:

The situation in the UK is that exhibitors pay. In the case of large chains, they negotiate a flat rate with Securicor to cover a set time period, whilst smaller operators and independents pay by the film - the rate varies according to the number of boxes and the weight of each one.

So over here at least, industry standards which put an end to the practice of cuttting short release print reels would certainly save cinemas money. But it would mean studios taking on an extra cost, so I can't see anything changing.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-24-2002, 02:42 AM:

Well it seems the industry has just answered this question as to why some movies have bizarre length reels. Paramount did a trade screening of Sum of All Fears about a month ago and all was fine. The movie was 7 reels and was VERY rough. After that screening they decided to make some changes. After changing some of the scenes and removing several minutes they ended up recutting it to fit on 6 reels. Turns out this re-edit confused Deluxe Hollywood and they ended up printing double reels and omitting others (something like two reel 2s and no reel 3 or 5, plus at least one leader had the wrong reel numbers on it). Since there was an important trade screening of this new edit and no one told anyone that the film had been recut to 6 reels (meaning the changeovers were at different scenes now), a reel 2 and 5 from the ORIGINAL rough edit print of the movie was sent out at the last second in the goodhearted attempt to save the screening. Oops! 15 minutes of the movie were shown twice, with different takes and edits, plus apparently there was missing footage in there too.

I guess the new policy ought to be "once the first 35mm print in ANY stage of production is struck, the reel changes may no longer be altered." Had they kept the movie on 7 reels and just had a couple of short reels, that never would have happened. Well, either that or if Deluxe had not have screwed up the reels and leaders on the re-edit print. But then again, the theater that ran it is also partially at fault because if they had've pre-screened it this would have been caught. Taking it one step further though, did the depot get the film to the theater the night before so they COULD pre-screen it? Maybe it's not the depot's fault because someone at Paramount gave orders to not allow the film to get there early? Maybe the depot wasn't involved at all and a courier was late? Hmmmmm. Who knows. Anyway, what a mess!